There has been increased interest in simulated explosive devices by the military, law enforcement, and recreational gaming communities. For example, the increasing use of explosive devices such as mines, booby traps, and improvised explosive devices (IEDs) on the battlefield, and their potential use by terrorists, has led the military and law enforcement communities to seek simulated explosive devices to assist in training against such threats. Recreational garners, such as participants in the growing sport of paint ball and other simulated war games, also desire realistic explosion simulators that provide an exhilarating gaming experience. Thus, there is strong demand for realistic, inexpensive and reusable explosion simulator devices that also provide a high margin of safety.
A typical simulated explosion device provides a visual simulation of an explosion by discharging a marking agent, such as a liquid, solid, or powder, to cover a desired area or “kill zone”. A person located in the kill zone when the marking agent is discharged will be marked with the marking agent, and classified as a “casualty,” and eliminated from the training exercise or game. In addition to providing a visual cue, a simulated explosive device also preferably provides an audible report to simulate the sound generated by an explosion. The visual cue and audio cue together form a realistic simulated explosion.
In the past, pyrotechnic-based devices were commonly used to simulate an explosion. While these devices had the advantage of providing a loud report, they ultimately proved to be unsafe, complex and expensive. These pyrotechnic-based simulated explosive devices have thus been banned from most gaming activities and are disfavored by the military due to safety concerns.
Against this backdrop, non-pyrotechnic explosive devices (NPEDs) were developed to simulate explosions without the inherent dangers associated with pyrotechnic-based devices. A typical NPED utilizes a pressure chamber having a propellant, such as a CO2 cylinder, to provide a force to discharge a marking agent to provide a visual simulation of an explosion.
While these NPEDs proved safer than their pyrotechnic-based predecessors, they had their own disadvantages. One drawback was the relatively weak report generated by NPEDs when compared to the report generated by a pyrotechnic-based device. This weak report contributed to an overall lack of realism for NPED generated simulations. For example, one prior art device expelled a marking agent through an outlet port in the device's housing. The outlet was sealed by a frangible cover which acted as a static barrier to the discharge of the marking agent. Pressure was released to the device to shatter the frangible seal and discharge a marking agent through the outlet port. While that device did provide a visual simulation of an explosion by discharging a marking agent, it failed to deliver a loud report. In addition, the use of a rigid frangible seal required substantial pressure to fragment the seal and discharge the marking agent. This large threshold pressure not only necessitated the use of a large and expensive compressed gas source that could produce harmful shrapnel, but the device was often inoperable at low temperatures due to the decreased volume of the cooled gas.
The prior art NPEDs were also not readily adaptable to deliver reports of different magnitudes to simulate different types of explosions. For example, to realistically simulate the explosion of a hand grenade, it may be desirable to generate a report having a first magnitude and a marking spray pattern of a first size. To simulate an IED explosion on the other hand, it may be desirable to provide a louder report and a larger spray pattern.
A recent breakthrough in the field of non-pyrotechnic explosive devices (NPEDs) is the development by Combat Training Solutions LLC of an NPED device that employs a resilient rupturable membrane, such as that described in U.S. Pat. No. 7,261,041 which is hereby incorporated by reference herein in its entirety. In an exemplary embodiment of that device, the NPED utilizes a pressure source to expand and rupture a resilient rupturable membrane. In an exemplary embodiment, pressure is released from a pressure source into a marking agent container to force a marking agent into the resilient rupturable membrane and expand the membrane to the point of rupture, thereby expelling the marking agent. This not only provides a visible simulation of an explosion, but also produces the desired loud report, thereby providing a realistic simulated explosion.
The resilient rupturable membrane of that device may be in the form of an explosion tube. Preferably at least a portion of the resilient rupturable membrane is exterior of the housing so that the membrane can expand considerably outside the container beyond its original size and rupture outside the housing to produce a loud report and expel a marking agent. This arrangement also allows the device to maintain a low profile prior to expansion of the membrane so that the device can be easily concealed.
While fit for their intended purposes, perhaps the biggest drawback of these prior art NPEDs however, is the use of special seals or other parts for successful operation. Not only can these special parts make arming the device difficult and complex, but the unavailability of such parts can effectively render the devices inoperable, resulting in unwanted and expensive downtime. This is a major concern as the special parts must be ordered, purchased, shipped, received, stocked and maintained, which can be difficult when many military training exercises or recreational gaming events occur in remote locations far from supply lines. If the supply of these specialized devices is depleted, there is no substitute readily available to allow operation of the NPED device.